September KM - 70 alterations in Revelation Climax Book (page 7)

SirNose586

Wow. I had heard about the alterations before, but not this bad! Somehow I feel like Winston Smith at the minitrue...

Do I understand this correctly? Are the JWs to take this Kingdom Ministry insert and write in the new corrections? Is there not going to be a new release of the Revelation book with the corrections in it?

I am getting the impression the JWs are to take a pen and scratch out the old light and insert the new light in the margins.

quixote

The revision to Chapter 34 p. 251 caught my attention. Half way down the paragraph the following is written: “Since Bible prophecies are often completely understood only after they are fulfilled or in the course of fulfillment, we will have to wait and see.” Does this apply to 1914, 1975, 2001 or pick your own prophecy fore told by the WTBS ? Didn’t they foretell prophecies before they occurred ? It just seems like a contradiction to me. Anyone else?

undercover

Man, they must be low on money. Used to, they'd print a newer, revised version of a book and most dubs would get a nice, new shiny book to mark up with their pens and highlighters and not even notice the changes.

Now, it looks like they're so cheap they won't even print a revsied edition, they'll just give everyone a list of changes to keep up with.

Or...

Maybe their crazy like a fox. Maybe they did it on purpose, so that apostates and critics of the Revelation book will not have the latest edition or revisions. By keeping the newer changes from being officially printed, anytime a critic of the Revelation book tries to blast it, defenders of the WTS will be able to refute the argument (or deflect it is more like it) by pointing out that the critic does not have the latest info or "new light".

But they didn't count on the underground apostate movement to post the KM insert on the Internet did they?

dirtyface1

HORRAY FOR THE UNDERGROUND APOSTATE MOVEMENT!!! I don't think any congretations have this KM yet! Well, I know the Publishers don't.

jambon1

Im sorry, but this is all just plain stupid.

I actually thought that someone was pulling my pisser when I looked at that scanned KM.

Surely this has got to be a red flag for those who are not spiritually asleep.

Sad org for sad people.

kgfreeperson

I think you can find dictionary definitions for exonerate that Watchtower apologists could point to defend its use in that context. But I think when most people use/hear the word they think "to prove not guilty." So the original was misleading, the revision is correct. I think the point made above that this kind of thing will be used as an example of how the Watchtower is "leveling" with the congregations is exactly right. Also disheartening.

I don't have anything like the experience most of you do with JWs, but I'm thinking for some people who will not live no matter what, following the structured life of a JW that provides the meaning. They can fit everything else around that structure and feel confident that God approves of how they live. I think many of them have long since given up on many of the teachings although they gladly accept the prejudices that don't much affect them (long hair/beards/boisterous music--let alone biggies like gayness and abortion).

Elsewhere

I haven't check to see if anyone has posted this yet, but here is the KM article in PDF format:

http://www.reexamine.info/OKM/9-06KM_Revelation_Climax_Updates.pdf

Many thanks goes to an anonymous person" I don't know if you need to remain nameless, so If you wish you can make yourself known with a post!

Leolaia

Check out this thread which has many of the documents and statements from the 1917-1918 period about what happened:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/96081/1.ashx

The first count was "wilfully causing insubordination, disloyalty and refusal of duty in the military and naval forces of the United States of America when the United States was at war".

The convictions were overturned not because the Bible students were found "innocent" but because the trial was not fair, e.g. their appeal was accepted and a mistrial was ruled. The case could have been retried but with the war over, this was not done. From the New York Times article on this (16 May 1919):

"The United States Circuit Court of Appeals annulled the conviction of followers of the late 'Pastor' Russell who in June last were found guilty of conspiracy to obstruct the draft, to discourage enlistment, and to create a spirit of insubordination in the armed forces of the nation... Yesterday's decision findign that the trial was not fairly conducted was written by Judge Henry G. Ward, and was concurred in by Judge Henry W. Rogers. Judge Martin T. Manton filed a dissenting opinion. After serving nine months, all the defendents were recently released under bail, pending the decision of the higher court. United States District Attorney Bell of Brooklyn refused to say yesterday whether of nor he contemplated a retrial of the case.

"Judge Ward in the prevailing decision mentions the calling by the Government of three witnesses, Mrs. Mabel Campbell, Mrs. Agnes Hudgings, and William F. Hudgings, all members of the Russellite organization.

" 'They were not willing witnesses,' Judge Ward explained, 'and the trial court properly allowed the Government great latitude in exmaining them. Mrs. Campbell refused to swear that a carbon copy of a letter submitted to her had been written by her from the dictation of the defendent, Van Amburgh, and Mrs. Hudgings was called with reference to a letter bearing a rubber stamp signature of J. F. Rutherford, another defendant. By the testimony of William F. Hudgings the Government sought to prove the signatures of Van Amburgh and Macmillan.

" 'We think the attitude of the court in regard to the testimony of three three witnesses and the action it took in the presence of the jury in the case of Hudgings was most prejudicial to the defendents. It was very likely to intimidate witnesses subsequently called, to prejudice the jurors against the defendents and to make them think that the court was satisfied with the defendant's guilt. It is not enough to justify a conviction that the defendent be guilty. He has a right to be tried in accordance with the rules of law. The defendants in this case did not have the temperate, impartial trial to which they were entitled and for that reason the judgment is reversed.' "

cabasilas

Thank you, Leolaia, for the explanation! Very helpful!

September KM - 70 alterations in Revelation Climax Book